Disposed

Karthick .D v. the Joint Commissioner

Madras HC8 Feb 2022WP(MD)/2578/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by tenants challenging an eviction notice. The Court held that the petitioners' rights are subject to the pending appeal by the landlord (5th respondent) and disposed of the petition with liberty to the landlord to proceed if the appeal fails.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed by observing that petitioners' rights are subject to the outcome of the pending appeal by the 5th respondent; liberty granted to the 3rd respondent to proceed against petitioners if

Karthick .D Vs the Joint Commissioner — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.2578 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.02.2022 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD) No.2578 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.2276 and 2277 of 2022

¶4

1.D.Karthick

¶5

2.Sivakumar

¶6

3.Murugan

¶7

4.K.Vasanth

¶8

5.B.Hema

¶9

6.G.Pandidurai ... Petitioners /vs./

¶10

1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Sivagangai District.

¶11

2.The Joint Commissioner,

¶12

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Madurai.

¶13

3.Executive Officer/Deputy Commissioner, Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Thirupparankundaram, Madurai.

¶14

4.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Madurai.

¶15

5.K.V.Lakshmiammal ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned proceedings of the 4^th respondent herein in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2348/2007-1 AA1 dated 28.01.2022 affixed in the premises on 04.02.2022 and quash the same as illegal and further direct the 1 to 4 Respondents herein take appropriate action in accordance with law by following the principals of natural of justice within in a time stipulated by this Court.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Nallathambi For R1, R2 & R4 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For R5 : Mr.Athimoola Pandian

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/3

¶20

W.P.(MD) No.2578 of 2022

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners are the tenants of the property, which allegedly belongs to the 3^rd respondent and in respect of which there is a title dispute. The impugned eviction notice dated 28.01.2022 was issued to the 5^th respondent. The 5^th respondent herein claims to be the owner of the property, who has rented to the petitioners. It is submitted that W.P.(MD) No.851 of 2022 filed by the 5^th respondent was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 19.01.2022.

¶23

2.It is further submitted that the 5^th respondent herein had filed W.A.(MD) No.60 of 2022 before the Division Bench of this Court against the order dated 19.01.2022. An order of interim was passed in C.M.P(MD)No.802 of 2022 in W.A(MD)No.60 of 2022. The relevant portion from the stay reads as under:-

¶24

“ 7.Learned senior advocate for the appellant has made serious grievance that, today only the authorities are standing on the site to dispossess the appellant. In view of this, it is ordered that no coercive action be taken against the appellant for a period of two months. This order is passed in presence of the learned advocates for the respondents. The same be communicated by them to the concerned authorities. Over and above this, private notice is also permitted. It would be open to serve the respondents by Registered Post.”

¶25

3.The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 5 confirms the same.

¶26

4.Considering the interim order dated 07.02.2022 in C.M.P(MD) No.802 of 2022 in W.A(MD) No.60 of 2022 and since the petitioners' right is subject to the right of the 5^th respondent, this writ petition is disposed of by observing that the rights of the petitioners in this writ petition will be subject to the final outcome of the order to be passed in W.A(MD)No.60 of 2022 r/w the order passed in C.M.P(MD)No.802 of in W.A.(MD) No.60 of 2022 dated 07.02.2022.

¶27

5.In case, adverse orders are passed against the 5^th respondent herein in W.A.(MD) No.60 of 2022, the 3^rd respondent is at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar (T&P)

¶30

// True Copy //

¶31

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶32

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

2/3

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.2578 of 2022

¶36

To:

¶37

1.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Sivagangai District. 2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Madurai. 3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.D.NALLATHAMBI, Advocate ( SR-4821[F] dated 08/02/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-5014[F] dated 09/02/2022 ) W.P.(MD)No.2578 of 2022 08.02.2022 RS (CO) GC(28.02.2022) 3P 6C

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

3/3

Karthick .D v. the Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthick .D v. the Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sooriyan v Vs the Commissioner

Selvakumar C Vs the District Collector

Senthil Kumar S Vs the Commissioner, (Appellate Authority)

Mahendran @ Moovendran Vs the Managing Director

Mani S.P. Vs the Commissioner

Mohanasundaram v Vs the Deputy Transport Commissioner